Just some quick comments:

- Source0: could be replaced with %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz
- %description should end with a period

The shebang is "#!/usr/bin/env bash". Wouldn't this need "Requires: bash"?

1. License should be 'ASL 2.0'.

2. Source0:        https://github.com/aristocratos/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz
   ->
   Source0:        %{url}/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz

3. Use upstream summary:
   Linux resource monitor

4. Description is to long. Limit it at 80 symbols and add dot in the end.

5. %autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
   ->
   %autosetup

6. Add also 'CHANGELOG.md' to %doc

7. Use macros consistenly in %files

   %{_bindir}/%{name]

8. Own whole directory

   %{_datadir}/%{name}/themes
   ->
   %{_datadir}/%{name}/  

9. Update to 0.8.16 version.

---

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 23 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/data-
     linux/tmp/review/1828813-bashtop/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/bashtop
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/bashtop
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: bashtop-0.8.15-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          bashtop-0.8.15-1.fc33.src.rpm
bashtop.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Resource monitor that shows usage and stats for processor, memory, disks, network and processes,
bashtop.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0
bashtop.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashtop
bashtop.src: E: description-line-too-long C Resource monitor that shows usage and stats for processor, memory, disks, network and processes,
bashtop.src: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0
bashtop.src: W: no-%build-section
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
bashtop.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Resource monitor that shows usage and stats for processor, memory, disks, network and processes,
bashtop.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0
bashtop.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashtop
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/aristocratos/bashtop/archive/v0.8.15/bashtop-v0.8.15.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 617aab0a23b1a9430f2ef7d51e4f89eb06c5b3f2ff40768cb6849fc2899ffc6a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 617aab0a23b1a9430f2ef7d51e4f89eb06c5b3f2ff40768cb6849fc2899ffc6a


Requires
--------
bashtop (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash



Provides
--------
bashtop:
    bashtop



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1828813
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, R, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, C/C++, Java, fonts, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Also you can add weak deps:

Recommends: lm-sensors
Recommends: curl

Requires: awk
Requires: coreutils
Requires: grep
Requires: procps-ng
Requires: sed

Also need here.

awk -> gawk

(In reply to Artem from comment #4)
> Requires: awk
> Requires: coreutils
> Requires: grep
> Requires: procps-ng
> Requires: sed
> 
> Also need here.

Yes, I thought to include these lines. But just to learn, since they are "core" packages, i.e. they are provided with a default Fedora workstation installation, and they cannot be removed without removing critical or protected packages (ie. systemd, sudo, etc.) isn't "redundant" to put a Requires directive?

New files.

Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/bashtop/bashtop.spec
SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/bashtop/bashtop-0.8.16-1.fc32.src.rpm

Thank you.

> Yes, I thought to include these lines. But just to learn, since they are "core" packages, i.e. they are provided with a default Fedora workstation installation, and they cannot be removed without removing critical or protected packages (ie. systemd, sudo, etc.) isn't "redundant" to put a Requires directive?

rpmlint says that packages requires only '/usr/bin/bash' so probably safe to add there this packages explicitly. Also zram for example package:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zram/blob/master/f/zram.spec#_18

Also, please, replace awk with gawk as i mentioned there https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813#c5

---

%{_datadir}/%{name}
->
%{_datadir}/%{name}/

Here is why this recommended to do: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694366#c14

---

This is cosmetic, but usually maintainers doing like this:

%doc README.md
%doc CHANGELOG.md
->
%doc README.md CHANGELOG.md

---

Please fix this minor issues before import. Package approved.

(In reply to Artem from comment #8)

> rpmlint says that packages requires only '/usr/bin/bash' so probably safe to
> add there this packages explicitly. Also zram for example package:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zram/blob/master/f/zram.spec#_18

Like there I also added 

%build
# None required

> Also, please, replace awk with gawk as i mentioned there
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828813#c5

Whoops, you are right

> Here is why this recommended to do:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694366#c14

Thanks.

> This is cosmetic, but usually maintainers doing like this:
> 
> %doc README.md
> %doc CHANGELOG.md
> ->
> %doc README.md CHANGELOG.md

Done.

> Please fix this minor issues before import. Package approved.

Thank you very much.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bashtop

FEDORA-2020-60de772c5c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-60de772c5c

FEDORA-2020-6ae3b955d5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6ae3b955d5

FEDORA-2020-90c636358d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-90c636358d

FEDORA-2020-61cbb9c80f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-61cbb9c80f

Hi Alessio, do you have any plan to release this package on EPEL too?

FEDORA-2020-d82d4b5325 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d82d4b5325`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d82d4b5325

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-61cbb9c80f has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-61cbb9c80f`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-61cbb9c80f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

(In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #15)
> Hi Alessio, do you have any plan to release this package on EPEL too?

Hi Germano.
I'm a rookie packager. I maintain a couple of simple packages. 
Said that, I don't know if releasing this package for EPEL needs extra efforts or it is a matter to issue "fedpkg switch-branch" && "git merge master"
I can take a look, or if you like you can become a co-maintainer.

Ciao

Yes I would like to become co-maintainer
By the way EPEL 7 and 8 are just other Fedora branches :-)

(In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #19)
> Yes I would like to become co-maintainer

Nice!
How it works? Is it sufficient I give you the rights on the repository, or is there some process to follow (i.e. opening a ticket, announcing it on the development mailing list)?

(In reply to Alessio from comment #20)
> (In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #19)
> > Yes I would like to become co-maintainer
> 
> Nice!
> How it works? Is it sufficient I give you the rights on the repository, or
> is there some process to follow (i.e. opening a ticket, announcing it on the
> development mailing list)?

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bashtop -> Settings -> Users & Groups -> Add user -> germano
Thank you!

FEDORA-2020-eaefd37115 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-eaefd37115`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-eaefd37115

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

(In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #21)
> <snip>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bashtop -> Settings -> Users & Groups -> Add user -> germano

Sure. So no need to announce it anywhere.

Done!

> Thank you!

You are welcome.

FEDORA-2020-d82d4b5325 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-eaefd37115 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-aed8695f2e has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-aed8695f2e`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-aed8695f2e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-d59e8c5198 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d59e8c5198`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d59e8c5198

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-d093849ce8 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d093849ce8`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d093849ce8

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-fd0102ca59 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-fd0102ca59`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fd0102ca59

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-fd0102ca59 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.